jump to navigation

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. CEO Don Gillispie Predicts Resurgence for Nuclear Power Following National Election November 3, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in Politics and nuclear.
Tags:
add a comment

BOISE, Idaho, Nov. 2, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — If Republicans win big in today’s election, as expected, they won’t be the only victors. “The other big winner will be nuclear power,” predicts Don Gillispie, CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTCQB:AEHI), (www.aehipower.com), a Boise-based company that seeks to build new nuclear power plants and nuclear desalination systems. “After today, we should see a resurgence of the industry, the likes of which we haven’t seen in 30 years.”

The reason: The likely GOP winners are far stronger supporters of nuclear power than Democrats and most Democrats who will remain are likely to be pro nuclear. “This is true not just in Congress, but also in governors’ offices and state legislatures,” Gillispie explains.

If Republicans take back the House of Representatives, for instance, the new Speaker of the House will be Representative John Boehner (R-OH). Boehner is a strong proponent of nuclear power and he wants to lift the current ban on using Yucca Mountain. “That would go a long way towards easing public concerns about the storage of spent fuel,” says Gillispie.

Boehner has plenty of company. The list of candidates for the House and Senate pushing for a nuclear resurgence is a long one. In Wisconsin, Republican businessman Ron Johnson is challenging Democratic Senator Russ Feingold. “Johnson is on record as saying that the expanded use of nuclear power would greatly reduce emissions while helping the economy move forward,” says Gillispie. Running for Arizona’s 3rd district, Republican Ben Quayle says roadblocks to nuclear energy are disastrous and need to be removed. In Oregon, Art Robinson, the GOP challenger to Democratic incumbent Representative Peter DeFazio, believes that expanding nuclear power can help prevent oil spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico. And in Iowa, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, the Republican challenge for Representative, says nuclear power is the only viable baseload replacement for coal. “The new Congress will be more pro-nuclear than any Congress we’ve seen in decades,” says Gillispie, who’s seen many swings of the political pendulum in his 45-year career in the nuclear industry.

It’s not yet clear if Republicans will also take back the Senate, but the stronger GOP presence in both Houses of Congress – combined with the more pro-nuclear Democrats–means that any deal stuck on energy policy will almost certainly include a big boost for nuclear power, says Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R- Ky). “We can expect to see faster regulatory approvals, more money in loan guarantees, and other policies that will jump-start the nuclear renaissance,” says Gillispie. “The more favorable federal climate for nuclear will also stimulate an explosion of private capital for new plants.”

The more auspicious climate will reach down to the state level. In Wisconsin, both candidates for governor – Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat, and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, a Republican – say they will support lifting the ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants in the state. In Maine’s gubernatorial race, Republican mayor and Tea Party favorite Paul LePage is welcoming nuclear power plants to the state. And in many elections for state legislatures, the balance will also tip dramatically towards candidates who favor nukes. “If Republicans win more governors’ races and expand their power in state legislatures, as expected, we’re going to see many more nuclear-friendly policies in the states,” says Gillispie. “The new leaders understand that nuclear power is not only the right energy choice, it’s also a powerful engine for local economic growth.”

The bottom line: “When the history of nuclear power is written, November 2, 2010 will be a major turning point for the industry,” says Gillispie. “It will mark the beginning of a dramatic resurgence for nuclear power.”

About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (http://www.aehipower.com): Alternate Energy Holdings develops and markets innovative clean energy sources. The company is the nation’s only independent nuclear power plant developer seeking to build new power plants in multiple non-nuclear states. Other projects include Energy Neutral(TM), which removes energy demands from homes and businesses (http://www.EnergyNeutralinc.com) and Green World Water(TM), which assists developing countries with nuclear reactors for power generation (http://www.GreenWorld-H2O.com), production of potable water and other suitable applications.

The Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=8058

Safe Harbor Statement: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “target,” “optimistic,” “intend,” “aim,” “will” or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements include, among others, those concerning our expected financial performance and strategic and operational plans, as well as all assumptions, expectations, predictions, intentions or beliefs about future events, including our ability to list on a national securities exchange. These statements are based on the beliefs of our management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to us and reflect our current view concerning future events. As such, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among many others: our significant operating losses; our limited operating history; uncertainty of capital resources; the speculative nature of our business; our ability to successfully implement new strategies; present and possible future governmental regulations; operating hazards; competition; the loss of key personnel; any of the factors in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the most recently completed fiscal year; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. You should also carefully review the reports that we file with the SEC. We assume no obligation, and do not intend, to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

References :
http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/04/the-remarkable-transformation-of-john-boehner-from-drill-baby-drill-to-environmental-activist
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/10/2010-us-election-preview-for-cleantech
http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/89053/
http://www.manchesterjournal.com/headlines/ci_16385983
http://www.theworldlink.com/news/local/article_fc931b26-dbc6-11df-a853-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com/?p=301934
http://indianadg.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/state-senate-candidate-eckerty-supports-nuclear-power-in-delaware-county-state-senator-sue-errington-proponent-of-renewable-energy/
http://www.piercecountyherald.com/event/article/id/29707/group/News/
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/levesque-attacksmichauds-record_2010-10-19.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130653324
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=214462

Advertisements

Senate bill good news for energy security May 14, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in Politics and nuclear, President Obama, reprocessing.
Tags:
add a comment
A proposed bill the US Senate would greatly promote the development of new nuclear generation and reprocessing facilities, according to this story in the Weekly Nuclear News. We hope it gets traction!

New energy policies for America

13 May 2010

A radical energy bill is on the table in the USA including stronger support for new nuclear generation and moves for a reprocessing research centre.

The 987-page Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, introduced to the Senate by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman on 12 May, leads with issues of nuclear power under the heading Encouraging Domestic Nuclear Power Generation. It is the most significant update to policy since the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which specified support for nuclear that has yet to really materialise.

After the section on nuclear come passages on a national strategy for carbon capture and sequestration, renewable energy and efficiency, cleaner transportation including electric vehicles and a set of overall goals for emission reduction.

Under the bill, “global warming pollution” would be reduced to 95.25% of 2005 levels by 2013, to 83% by 2020, 58% by 2030 and 17% by 2050. The method for this would be cap-and-trade, under allowances set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Most immediately for nuclear, the bill echoes a request already made by President Barack Obama to boost the scope of loan guarantees for nuclear development to $54 billion. This is a big improvement on the current limit of $18.5 billion, which is only enough to aid finance for two or three projects.

It calls for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to “implement an expedited procedure” for more straight-forward applications to build – those with approved reactor designs, concerning sites with an Early Site Permit, or that come complete and with demonstrated financial backing. The NRC would have to suggest ways it could accelerate its processes within 90 days if the bill was passed. Within a year the commission would have to outline a way to “develop technology-neutral” guidelines for nuclear licensing “which will allow for a more seamless entry of new technologies into the marketplace.”

And for the construction phase, insurance against the risk of regulatory delays is to be boosted from the first six new reactors to the first 12 with a maximum payout of $500 million.

Small reactors

The bill contains language to help bring in a new era of small reactors: “Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the secretary [of energy] shall develop and publish on the website of the Department of Energy a schedule that contains an outline of a five-year strategy to lower effectively the costs of nuclear reactors.” A sum of $50 million is authorized in the bill for this program which includes research on “modular and small-scale reactors.”

Commitment to Excellence

Within one year, one of the USA’s national laboratories would have to be designated a “spent fuel recycling research and development centre of excellence to serve as the lead site for continuing research and development of advanced nuclear fuel cycles and separation technologies.”

This would be a major step in US policy away from President Jimmy Carter’s 1977 proliferation-inspired policy to never again separate plutonium. New methods could be developed where plutonium remains with fuel materials useless for nefarious bomb-makers. The USA’s entire management strategy for high-level waste and used nuclear fuel is under review in the wake of the decision to abandon the Yucca Mountain project.

Tax

A range of tax changes are also included to encourage utilities to build and manufacturers to enter the nuclear supply chain. Among these are an investment tax credit for nuclear power facilities and the inclusion of nuclear plants as qualifying for ‘advanced energy project’ credit.

For the supply chain, duty fees on certain nuclear components not available from US manufacturers will be suspended for ten years.

Researched and written
by World Nuclear News

Obama promises to boost nuclear power January 29, 2010

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in balanced approach, Barack Obama, economic benefits, Energy policy, Politics and nuclear, President Obama.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

President Obama appears to be warming to nuclear power in a big way. In his state of the union speech this week, he said “to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”

Obama stated his support for nuclear power while campaigning, and several times since then. Today, however, his administration said it will press for $54 billion in new loan guarantees for new plants. Loan guarantees have proven the least costly form of energy assistance – so far, the government hasn’t had to pay any for nuclear plants – and give private investors some assurance. That’s needed in the face of excessive and unreasonable opposition to nuclear power, which drives up costs.

Last week, Obama issued an executive order to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent by 2020. The only way to do that and keep our economy healthy is with an all-of-the-above approach embracing conservation, renewables, clean fossil and nuclear.

Obama appears to be backing up his words with specific financial proposals and that is most welcome. Another $54 billion would greatly assist utilities and private investors companies, such as ours, move forward on our plans to keep clean, reliable, secure nuclear energy a vital part of America’s infrastructure.

Expanding opportunities August 6, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Elmore County, Energy policy, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Anyone who knows me, knows I am not a complacent person. While our application in Elmore County remains in play as much as ever, it has been a year and we have no clear commitment from the county. Our duty to our stockholders, to our principles and to the people of Idaho requires us to move forward with consideration of other sites.

NEWS RELEASE

For 9:15 am

August 6, 2009

AEHI’s Idaho Nuclear Plant Offered Multiple Sites

Boise, Idaho, August 6, 2009 – Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (OTC: AEHI.PK): AEHI is pleased  to announce several Idaho counties and the state have recently offered lands for AEHI’s nuclear plant following delays in local approval at the current site in Elmore County.

AEHI CEO and president Don Gillispie said, “It is certainly exciting to have so many in Idaho recognize the tremendous benefits of a next generation, environmentally friendly nuclear plant including high paying jobs, great tax revenue; and abundant, low cost, clean power in a region that is critically short on base load energy options. Elmore County’s delay has created a friendly competition for our plant. We are now looking at two additional sites outside of the current county that may actually receive local approval before the existing site.”

AEHI’s site engineering contractor is completing their assessments so we can move forward in a timely manner on these new nuclear plant locations.

Also, the company has also been in contact with several non-nuclear utilities who are considering nuclear plants instead of continuing to invest in the rising cost of carbon plants going forward and need nuclear experienced partners.

“This is likely to be an increasing trend as primarily fossil based utilities realize nuclear is the only viable option for clean base load power today. While nuclear prices are affordable and stable, fossil-fuel prices continue to rise dramatically and fewer carbon base load plants negatively impacts reliability for their customers,” says Gillispie.

About Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (www.alternateenergyholdings.com)

Alternate Energy Holdings develops and markets innovative clean energy sources.  Current projects include the Idaho Energy Complex (an advanced nuclear plant and bio-fuel generation facility), Energy Neutral which removes energy demands from homes and businesses (www.energyneutralinc.com), Colorado Energy Park (nuclear and solar generating plants) and International Reactors, Inc., which assists developing countries with nuclear reactors for power generation, production of potable water and other suitable applications.

This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Sections 27A & 21E of the amended Securities and Exchange Acts of 1933-34, which are intended to be covered by the safe harbors created thereby.  Although AEHI believes that the assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained herein are reasonable, there can be no assurance that these statements included in this press release will prove accurate.

US Investor Relations:

208-939-9311

invest@aehipower.com

"Commission praised for patience during nuke hearing" April 29, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Energy policy, Mountain Home News, Politics and nuclear, rural nuclear, Snake River Alliance, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The Mountain Home News was kind enough to publish this letter today. It pretty much speaks for itself.

Commission praised for patience during nuke hearing

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Dear editor:

We applaud the patience of the Elmore County Commission in dealing with a very controversial issue at last week’s hearing. Throughout the over four hours of testimony from both sides, the commissioners heard and saw plenty of information.

In our view, the hundreds of supporters who showed up to support jobs, clean low-cost energy, agriculture and economic growth carried the day. Testimony on our behalf was passionate, including former planning and zoning commissioners who supported our application. Farmers, large landowners, the local farm bureau, shopkeepers and average citizens all told the commission that Elmore County needs stable jobs and that rezoning our land would serve the best interests of Elmore County. We have also submitted 1,600 Idaho signatures in support of the rezone, half of them from Elmore County residents.

We know some 500 people showed up at various stages of the four-hour meeting to support us. We handed out 475 green “AEHI supporter” stickers to people and we counted about 400 of those stickers over the course of the evening (people showed up shortly after 4 p.m. to our table and were coming until after 7 p.m.). There were also many supporters who had to stand in the back and behind the boundary wall who requested stickers, but we had run out. By contrast, we counted fewer than 100 people wearing stickers opposing us throughout the entire evening. Also, fewer than 10 percent of the AEHI supporters spoke. In contrast, over a third of the opposition spoke, but many were from the same organization. Their organizations were given 10 minutes of speaking time, and then in violation of the rules individual members of the organization also spoke giving the misleading appearance of an equal number for and against.

We expect people to oppose us, but the opposition sometimes resorted to strange arguments. I’m sure some of you have been in the position where you tell someone something, they give you a blank stare and act as though they didn’t hear a word you just said. That’s how we often felt at last week’s public hearing on our rezone.

Opponents largely ignored information presented by AEHI staff and our supporters. We showed pictures of nuclear plants with farm fields and grazing cows just a stone’s throw from reactor buildings, to prove that nuclear plants are very compatible with surrounding ag land uses. We repeated that our plant would occupy just 200 of the 1,300 acres in the rezone, with most of the rest of the land devoted to farming. We made it clear our site won’t have any of those large cooling towers. We stated we’ve already spent $8 million and put 100 Idahoans to work on our effort. We made it clear that many acres of good land could be farmed but aren’t due to the high cost of water. We specified nuclear plants emit no smoke, dust, noise or odors and do not generate large amounts of traffic in operation. We made it clear we’d use a low-water design for our plant and rely on existing water rights, not impinging on existing water holders in any way. We made it clear jobs would start soon after the rezone and Conditional Use Permit approval and ramp up to several thousand during the construction phase.

We also clarified that most jobs at our plant won’t require a college degree, just specialized training that we can provide.

In response, people made some amazing claims, suggesting we could put a dump or tire-burning plant on the site. Another gentleman worried about terrorists using advanced radar weaponry to induce earthquakes to destroy reactors and cities. They insisted our plant would destroy their rural setting, even when the reality of nuclear plants shows they are good neighbors and take up little room. Some kept referring to the land as “their farmland” and that they wanted to farm it, so it should be kept as-is for their benefit (whatever happened to private property rights? And why has the land been sold several times as recently as 2007, but no one from Elmore County purchased it?). They also said farmland is disappearing; having grown up on a farm myself, this is a strong appeal to make. However, according to the USDA’s 2007 Census of Agriculture, “nearly 300,000 new farms have begun operation since the last census in 2002.” Elmore County farm statistics, obtained from the county extension office, show farms in the county also increased between 2002 and 2007, from 364 to 381. While Idaho agriculture is robust, we know farmland figures could increase substantially if our power plant is built, as many acres cannot be irrigated due to lack of low-cost power for irrigation pumps.

Most surprisingly, several opponents said the jobs won’t materialize because the plant won’t be built — then proceeded to argue against the rezone so the plant could not be built!

The Snake River Alliance is a master of these both-sides-of-the-fence arguments. On one hand, the SRA says our reactor can’t be built for a mountain of reasons — but if they really believe that, why are they spending their time opposing us? Their preoccupation with our project is unintended but welcome testimony that we are fully capable of building this plant and have an excellent shot at success, even given the current financial markets.

For someone to build a commercial nuclear plant in Idaho on their watch would pretty much verify the SRA has lost relevance and is out of touch with modern environmental thinking, even more so than the successful Areva and Idaho National Laboratory expansions demonstrate.

So, this really is about jobs: theirs (about 10) versus ours (about 5,000, with salaries much higher). It’s also stunning the Snake River Alliance would say it’s concerned about jobs and agriculture in Elmore County, when it has advocated the closure of Mountain Home Air Force Base and supported restricting water supplies to farmers to protect the Bruneau Snail. I am frankly surprised at their alliance with the Hammett-area farmers. I guess the saying “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” holds, even uniting former enemies who haven’t considered the consequences. What will these farmers do when the newly empowered SRA resumes advocacy of cutting their water rights to protect a snail or return farmland to its original “pristine condition”?

Despite all the misinformation, the people who made the loudest statement last week were our hundreds of supporters. Sadly, the SRA and opposition websites (which don’t allow comment) discount and mock the people who are eager and willing to get to work building and running a reactor.

Our opponents concern themselves with obstructing and stopping, not building and creating. No matter how this is resolved, we have made a very clear statement that Elmore County’s (and Idaho’s) baseload energy supply and economic development are pressing issues – and neither the Snake River Alliance nor their supporters have any plan to address them.

For more information on the rezone and our intentions, please go to www.alternateenergholdings.com or www.cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com.

Don Gillispie

President and CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc.

Rhetorical meltdown February 21, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, anti-renewable energy, approval process, Elmore County, Energy policy, environmentalists, Idaho leadership, Mountain Home News, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear, President Obama, Snake River Alliance, Steven Chu.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

It’s been a rough few months for the Snake River Alliance, and it shows in the shrill and over-the-top rhetoric of their news releases. I suppose it’s for the best they don’t blog and have removed from their Web site the ability for public comment.

Among the setbacks to the SRA: a pro-nuclear president and energy secretary are now in office; the SRA had to admit they were clueless when they stooped to calling us criminals; the state of Idaho has reshuffled its renewable energy priorities to better conform to reality; AREVA is moving forward with a uranium processing facility in Idaho; and the SRA has bailed on at least one public hearing to support embattled wind farm developers.

Apparently, the SRA is engaging in some fundraising by continuing its attempts to vilify us. Their latest news release, regarding our status as a fully reporting company before the SEC, is laughable to anyone with an understanding of business.

To clear up the SRA’s untruths:

• We were “four months late” filing our registration statements (on Feb. 19, we reported the SEC has accepted our registration statement, qualifying us to be a fully reporting company, conduct audits and file required financial reports for current and potential investors). This is nonsense. You can’t be late on a registration statement because there is no requirement to be fully reporting. It is a choice that public companies make to be more open.

• We didn’t disclose any lawsuits in filing our registration statement (at the time, we had a pending lawsuit against the SRA for defamation). You are only required to disclose lawsuits against your company, not lawsuits you have filed against others. Anyone who has been through this process knows that.

I failed to appear at the Legislature when invited. Very wrong. I have been invited twice to appear before an interim committee on energy (not the Legislature) and appeared both times. I testified once and the second time, the meeting ran an hour over and I had to leave to another meeting; I later emailed my remarks to the committee. The SRA knows this but conveniently forgets to mention it.

We “lost” the defamation lawsuit. After Andrea Shipley admitted she had no factual basis for calling us “scammers,” we did not object to their motion to dismiss the suit. Shipley’s critiques “generally represent the highly subjective opinions of the [speaker] rather than assertions of verifiable, objective fact,” according to the SRA court filing. Her admission that she had no factual basis for her statements is a retraction and that pleases us.

• We were late in paying a $50,000 bill to Owyhee County. We had originally proposed to build our plant in Owyhee County and the filing fee was $1,000 and we offered to pay $50,000 because of the exceptional nature of our application. We asked Owyhee County for a written bill, which we need for accountability purposes. The Mountain Home News on Oct. 8 quoted Commissioner Dick Freund: “Once notified in writing, they paid up almost immediately.”

We invite the SRA to be as open as we are and post a link to their financial statements – heck, maybe even start blogging, allow public comment and join the rest of us. The SRA’s distortions of facts and fulminations don’t substitute for a discussion of Idaho’s or America’s energy future.

Hope in a bad economy February 13, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, approval process, economic benefits, Elmore County, Energy policy, Greenfield nuclear development, Mountain Home News, Politics and nuclear, rural nuclear.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The news in last week’s Mountain Home News was unsettling. Unemployment in the county has reached 7 percent in Elmore County – not a devastating figure, but high for a place with a normally robust economy, and slightly ahead of the state figure of 6.6 percent. Loss of jobs at Micron, the closing of a potato processing plant, a poor Christmas season and fewer car sales are behind much of the job unemployment.

According to the story, people are taking lower-paying jobs to get through but “… in general, if you’re looking for high-paying jobs, you’re not going to find it in Elmore County. You’re probably going to have to move. There just aren’t any jobs like that here,” said Albert Clement, who runs the local Idaho Department of Labor office. Unemployment benefits are essential, Clement said, because “this is outside money coming and outside money tends to roll over several times” before it leaves the local economy.

The bright spots in the economy are construction at the air base, the Marathon Cheese factory and Wal-Mart.

These are uncertain times for the state and national economies. With a new administration, Mountain Home Air Force Base may once again be at risk of shrinkage or closure. At a time like this, it is worth revisiting our 2007 economic study by Johnson Gardner of Portland, Ore.

Nuclear plants generate energy that is second only to hydro in low cost, because uranium is a cheap and potent fuel, but nuclear plants are capital intensive. That’s good news for communities that develop nuclear plants, as they will enjoy plentiful construction jobs for several years and later reap the benefits of jobs that pay an average of $80,000 a year. Our reactor will remain a mainstay of Idaho’s economy – you can be sure we won’t offshore to Asia. We will be here to stay.

Our 2007 economic study found our plant will (amounts are in 2006 dollars):

·             Create a total commercial impact of $2.6 billion during construction – a boost of nearly 6 percent to the State’s economy.

·             Generate 4,230 jobs statewide during construction, including a total annual payroll impact of $839 million – nearly 2 percent of the payroll in Idaho.

·             Generate ripple economic effects of $237 million during construction in Ada, Canyon, and Bonneville counties.

·             Create a total commercial impact of $155 million a year during operation.

·             Generate 1,004 annual jobs statewide during operation (estimated 60 years or more) with an annual statewide payroll impact of $57 million.

·             Pay average annual wages of $80,000 to plant employees (267 percent of Idaho average) and pay would be $33,536 (112 percent of Idaho average) in industries indirectly affected.

·             Produce annual state tax revenues of $74 million during operation.

·             Grow employment in Elmore and Owyhee counties by 25 percent.

·             Produce total annual labor income impacts in Owyhee and Elmore counties of $52.3 million during operation.

·             Permanent IEC operation would single-handedly boost State General Fund revenues by 3.3 percent annually.

The report estimated there are enough Idaho workers to fill most of the construction jobs. Whenever possible, we will use workers, engineers, consultants and businesses from Owyhee County, Idaho and the Northwest region.

Oddly, while our opponents criticize us for possibly selling power out of state (as wind farms and geothermal plants already do), the other side of the coin is that our plant will greatly benefit Elmore County’s economy because it will, in fact, bring in money from out of state!

Even with no new plants under construction, the development process is putting people to work. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “nuclear energy is one of the few bright spots in the US economy – expanding rather than contracting.”

The NEI report says the prospect of new plant construction in has already stimulated considerable investment and job creation among companies that supply the nuclear industry: “over the last several years, the nuclear industry has invested over $4 billion in new nuclear plant development, and plans to invest approximately $8 billion in the next several years to be in a position to start construction in 2011-2012.”

In the course of this, NEI said, “private investment in new nuclear power plants has created an estimated 14,000-15,000 jobs.” The number of new jobs “will expand dramatically after 2011 when the first wave of these new nuclear projects starts construction.”

Obama signals pro-nuke stance in Steven Chu pick January 20, 2009

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in balanced approach, Barack Obama, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, international, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear, President Obama, reprocessing, Steven Chu.
Tags: , , , , , ,
2 comments

I welcome President Obama to the leadership of the United States. While Obama has always been a supporter of nuclear power, his pick for Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, is especially encouraging.

On Jan. 13, Chu sat before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and confirmed the Obama administration’s strong desire to push our country “towards energy independence, ” including a “continued commitment to nuclear power.”

Chu affirmed he was “supportive of the fact that the nuclear energy industry is, and should have to be, a part of our energy mix in this century.” Alluding to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Chu said he’s “confident that the Department of Energy, perhaps in collaboration with other countries, can get a solution to the nuclear waste problem” and that reprocessing of used nuclear fuel “can be a part of that solution … certainly recycling is an option that we will be looking at very closely.”

Chu also told Senators that he supports the loan guarantee program to use $18.5 billion as security to encourage lending for low-carbon generation technology.

“Nuclear power, as I said before, is going to be an important part of our energy mix. It’s 20 percent of our electricity generation today, but it’s 70 percent of the carbon-free portion of electricity today and it is base-load. So I think it’s very important we push ahead.”

As I blogged previously, Obama also made a good pick in his National Security Advisor, James Jones, a retired Marine general and former president and CEO of the Institue for 21st Century Energy, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Jones advocates a comprehensive overhaul to U.S. energy policy in the name of national defense.

State makes right move in shifting focus away from wind December 30, 2008

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in balanced approach, Energy policy, Idaho leadership, Politics and nuclear, Snake River Alliance, Wind energy.
Tags: , , , , ,
1 comment so far

The Associated Press, with a clear bias for wind energy, reports that Gov. Otter has disbanded the Idaho Wind Power Working Group, the state’s wind promotion think tank, and reassigned its staff member to work on energy efficiency instead. The Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance, a panel Otter created to plan for the state’s energy needs, will assume some of the working group’s functions. Energy office director Paul Kjellander said he made the changes to better coordinate renewable energy development, including biogas from dairies, solar and geothermal, under Otter’s new alliance.

This is a very wise move on the part of the state government. Before I am pegged as being anti-wind, one of AEHI’s subsidiaries, Energy Neutral, works to put wind, solar and other renewable into new and existing homes and businesses, so I understand the potential and proper place for wind energy.

As far as a statewide policy for Idaho, energy efficiency is a better goal than wind promotion. Wind is a niche power source at best and the real energy issue in Idaho is no base load plants have been built in 30 years. The Associated Press, the Snake River Alliance and other wind promoters like to say Idaho ranks 13th among states for wind power potential. That figure comes from the American Wind Energy Association which obviously has in interest in promoting wind development.

A rank of 13 is actually misleading, because wind potential, like fossil fuels, geothermal, hydro or solar power potential, is a gift that nature does not share equally. Taking a look at the wind potential map from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory below, we can see that only a few areas nationally reach Class 3, the minimum required for utility-scale power generation, and 95 percent of Idaho ranks as Class 1 or 2; indeed, most of the U.S. ranks as Class 1 or below. Only in the very center of the nation – from about North Dakota to straight down to northern Texas – are there large contiguous areas necessary for large-scale industrial wind production.

Idaho has few areas suitable for utility-scale wind production

Idaho has few areas suitable for utility-scale wind production

According to the NREL, “Areas designated Class 3 or greater are suitable for most utility-scale wind turbine applications, whereas class 2 areas are marginal for utility-scale applications but may be suitable for rural applications.”

The 50-meter wind resource map below presents the same information a bit differently, showing wind speed estimates at 50 meters above the ground and depicting the resource that could be used for utility-scale wind development. Of the developable areas in Idaho, most are fair-to-marginal for utility-scale generation.

irwm-1

Still, savvy wind developers are finding and harnessing Idaho’s wind potential and I wish them the best of luck. We can and should be developing every green energy source at our disposal.

These maps are further evidence that Gov. Otter and Paul Kjellander made the right decision. If Idaho were one of the few states that had an abundance of utility-scale generation, then a state office dedicated to wind energy would make sense. As it stands, however, Idaho’s wind energy resources are more suitable for smaller-scale rural production, which has an important role to play in the scheme of things. But Idaho definitely doesn’t have the concentration of wind resources for any sizeable utility-scale generation.

Idaho Statesman publishes our response December 24, 2008

Posted by cleanidahoenergy in AEHI, Agriculture, economic benefits, Elmore County, Energy policy, Greenfield nuclear development, Idaho Statesman, nuclear industry, Politics and nuclear, reactor types, reprocessing, rural nuclear, Snake River Alliance, Water policy.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

For the past 30 years, the nuclear industry has kept a low profile, producing more energy with fewer reactors and with the best safety record imaginable. The industry is now making an effort to better publicize itself and that includes responding to misinformation.

The Idaho Statesman was kind enough to print this response to a recent Sierra Club column. You can see the online version at The Statesman’s site as well as the ensuing discussion.

Jennie Ransom: Nuclear power is very much a part of our green energy future

READER’S VIEW: ENERGY
Edition Date: 12/23/08

jennifer-ransomJessica Ruehrwein’s Nov. 12 Reader’s View repeats many of the same myths about nuclear power and we must present the truth. (While we disagree with Ruehrwein, her tone is a welcome change from the trademark incivility of the Snake River Alliance.)

Anti-nuclear activists are becoming increasingly isolated. Indeed, Scott Howson, one of Ruehrwein’s colleagues and chairman of the Rappahannock Group of the Sierra Club, said, “I see a solution ultimately in nuclear energy. It’s non-polluting, and that’s what we’re all looking for.”

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Wildlife Habitat Council, African-American Environmentalist Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Environmental Defense are also willing to consider nuclear as part of a solution to global warming. In this past election, both Barack Obama and John McCain supported nuclear, as did all Idaho Republican and Democrat congressional candidates. A record 74 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy, according to a September 2008 Bisconti survey.

Like many people, I used to be opposed to nuclear power, until I did my homework. There is no other source of carbon-free power that can provide the reliable, low-cost energy our nation needs to remain secure and prosperous.

Alternate Energy Holdings is proposing the Idaho Energy Complex (www.idahoenergycomplex.com), the first base-load power plant in Idaho in 30 years. In contrast to first-generation reactors that need 30 million gallons of water daily, we’ll consume as few as 100,000, thanks to a hybrid cooling design. Water will move through the facility for cooling and go to farmers, a biofuels facility and greenhouses. Our opponents know this, yet they continue repeating misinformation (see our blog at cleanidahoenergy.wordpress.com).

It is true nuclear plants have high capital costs. The trade-off is that nuclear fuel is very inexpensive. A pound of uranium sells for about $45, yet a fuel pellet the size of your fingertip produces as much energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 1,780 pounds of coal.

Despite the supportive rhetoric, environmentalists routinely oppose wind farms because of their potential to decimate bird and bat populations and the large amounts of land they consume. In contrast, nuclear plants take up relatively little land, fit both urban and rural areas and the land around them typically becomes habitat. Ruehrwein also omits mention of the subsidies that all forms of energy require, including renewables.

The spent fuel from American reactors over the past 50 years could cover a football field about 15 feet deep. That’s not much when you consider nuclear provides 20 percent of our nation’s energy and 80 percent of its carbon-free energy. All this spent fuel can be reprocessed into more fuel, as in other countries, but we don’t reprocess because of environmentalist opposition.

Our opponents conveniently forget to mention the merchant wind farms and geothermal producers that are already exporting Idaho power. They join the merchant farmers, food processors and computer chip makers who bring money and provide jobs in Idaho. The IEC would generate more energy than we could consume in the current market and help capture some of the $2 billion that Idahoans send out of state for power annually.

Oddly, critics seem to have no problem with merchant renewables. And neither do we. In truth, we have much in common with opponents in our support of renewable energy. However, we – and most Americans and political leaders – know national economic and security interests demand a mainstream, inclusive approach that recognizes renewable, nuclear, natural gas and other clean and low-carbon approaches.

Given nuclear power’s contributions and stellar safety record, we believe it is extremist and closed-minded to exclude any form of energy from our nation’s future.

Jennie Ransom is vice-president of administration of Alternate Energy Holdings Inc.